M/S Nmr Engineering And Works Faridabad vs. Union Of INDIA And Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s NMR Engineering & Works, Fardiabad, filed a writ petition before the Punjab & Haryana High Court. The matter was initially listed for preliminary hearing on November 26, 2020, and was directed to be listed after the decision in SLP (C) Nos. 7425-7428 of 2020. The parties brought to the court's notice that the Supreme Court had passed specific directions in the aforementioned SLP on July 22, 2022. These directions pertained to opening a common portal for filing transitional credit forms (TRAN-1 and TRAN-2) for a period of two months, allowing aggrieved registered assessees to file or revise forms, ensuring no technical glitches, and providing a timeframe for verification and order passing by concerned officers. The petitioner, in light of these Supreme Court directions, did not press the instant petition.

Held

The Court noted that the Supreme Court, in SLP (C) Nos. 7425-7428 of 2022, had issued comprehensive directions on July 22, 2022. These directions mandated the Goods and Service Tax Network (GSTN) to open a common portal for filing transitional credit forms (TRAN-1 and TRAN-2) for two months (September 1, 2022, to October 31, 2022). Any aggrieved registered assessee was permitted to file or revise their forms, irrespective of prior writ petitions or decisions by the ITGRC. The GSTN was directed to ensure no technical glitches. Concerned officers were given 90 days thereafter to verify claims and pass orders on merits after affording an opportunity to parties. Allowed transitional credit was to be reflected in the Electronic Credit Ledger. The Court observed that these directions had to be meticulously complied with. In view of these Supreme Court directions, the counsel for the petitioner stated that they did not press the instant petition. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Supreme Court's directions in SLP (C) Nos. 7425-7428 of 2022, concerning the opening of a common portal for filing transitional credit forms and subsequent verification, render the present writ petition infructuous. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner, through their counsel, did not press the petition, implicitly accepting that the Supreme Court's directions provided a mechanism to address their grievance. Revenue/State's contention: The respondents, Union of India and others, along with the State of Haryana, were present and represented. The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue/state, but their presence indicates their engagement with the proceedings following the Supreme Court's order.